Three issues threaten a breakdown in our system of government: gun control laws, immigration and the legalization of marijuana. Well, at least these three. New Hampshire’s stance on gun control threatens adherence to the Union. Vermont’s stance on marijuana and immigration does in the same way, by institutionalizing disrespect for federal law enforcement.
Immigration is a matter committed to federal authority under our Constitution. Federal law should be respected, whether we agree with it or not. And federal authorities should be allowed to enforce it.
Vermont, and its agencies and cities and towns, should not conspire to hinder and delay federal immigration authorities in the conduct of their duties. This constitutes a breach of one’s oath of office, and an act of rebellion. Federal immigration authorities have a right to call on state authorities for assistance, and to receive it. The position of Vermont on this, and so many other questions of divided government, like that now of many other states, threatens to lead to the breakup of this country. One would have thought the lessons of what this leads to had been learned in schools, and in the murals we see in the Statehouse in Montpelier.
Granted, we have big problems with our federal government, in particular with respect to immigration. It could be easily summed up this way: Legal immigration is too hard; illegal immigration, too easy. But everything is the way it is for a reason, and I guess most people just like it this way. Thus, we develop a permanent underclass of servants less privileged than we citizens, willing to work for less and possessed of fewer rights. An reasonable and enlightened position on this matter of policy would be to call for reversing these conditions. I am for that. In the meantime, I favor respect for the rule of law. Vermont’s cities and towns should not venture to hinder and delay federal law enforcement officers in the conduct of their duties, but should cooperate with them. To do otherwise serves no good end, and can only lead to greater troubles.
TYLER P. HARWELL
Perkinsville
Two recent letters highlighting President Donald Trump’s “accomplishments” are remarkable for their civility … and their inaccuracy.
Let’s first consider the economy, for which Trump takes disproportionate credit. Few of my working neighbors wake up rejoicing over what was (before the recent coronavirus shocks) a bull stock market. Indeed, in this “great economy,” most are trying to cope with rising medical costs (what happened to Trump’s “beautiful health plan”?), the cost of child care (as both parents work), and the fact that, like many Americans, none is equipped to deal with a sudden emergency demanding $400.
Here are some matters worth pondering as Trump crows about “making America great again”: We have tremendous problems with suicide, addiction, obesity, illiteracy, mass killings and poverty. Meanwhile, the only significant economic gesture Trump has made is that ruinous tax cut for the very wealthy, which partly accounts for our unprecedented debt (and which “conservatives” so lamented under his predecessor). Income inequality, too, is unprecedented. Iran is closer to atomic weaponry than it was before he pulled us out of the agreement.
One could go on point by point, though there is of course no need to rebut the notion that Trump — who interferes in Justice Department affairs and obstructs Congress — is defending the Constitution.
SYDNEY LEA
Newbury, Vt.
Who pays for tuition-free college?
Sen. Bernie Sanders and many of the other Democratic candidates have talked about tuition-free college for those attending public colleges and universities. They also talk about college debt forgiveness.
Let’s look at free college first. The average cost per year for a student attending a public school is $28,600 and there are about 14.56 million students enrolled in public schools. That amounts to a cost to the taxpayer of about $416 billion per year or 11.5% of the current national budget. With all of the federal government’s current obligations, the only way that I see to raise that amount is through increased taxes. Taxing who and for how much are the unanswered questions.
Different colleges and universities have different costs based on their overhead expenses, the largest of which are salaries and benefits. Will the federal government control those costs by dictating to the schools how many personnel they can have and what their salary and benefits will be? I believe that will happen in order to level the playing field. Now what happens to private schools, with their larger comparative student costs? Will they survive in an environment were someone can go to college for free? I doubt it.
Now, let’s forgive student debt, estimated at $1.52 trillion dollars. How is the government going to meet that shortfall? Through increased taxes or increasing the national debt, which requires annual interest payments and will require raising taxes.
I honestly don’t feel that I should pay someone else’s bills when I am on a fixed income and have to pay my own. Furthermore, I went to college, my wife went to college, my two children went to college and we paid all of our college debts. Now there is a movement for me to pay off someone else’s college debt. What about someone who couldn’t afford to go to college. You want them to pay for someone else to go to college? I have a simple philosophy: “You bought the farm, now you pay for it.”
BRUCE ST. PETER
Grantham
Citrus at Northern Stage … breathtaking, breath-giving, joy, angst, history, poetry, dance, song, visual … like a long gulp of your favorite, refreshing drink that you feel slide down your throat, through your gullet and into your soul. Not to be missed.
DEECIE DENISON
Fairlee